(June 26, 2021 at 2:01 am)Astreja Wrote:No no, it's "dishonest" to not let them invent their own standards that conveniently support their opinion.(June 25, 2021 at 3:30 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: And your rejection of non-empirical evidence (inferential arguments, deductive arguments, analogical arguments, etc.) is a sheer display of your dishonesty towards the religious case.
Dishonesty? There is nothing dishonest about recognizing that from a very, very early age the "religious case" has always registered in my mind as fiction. I owe it no more respect than I owe to a comic book.
Quote:You didn't say that verbatim -of course, I just mentioned the underlying assumption you're too cowardly to tell us more about...
Thank you for acknowledging that you did in fact lie about what I said.
As for your libel against my character, that says far more about you than me -- and says even more about how worthless your beliefs are.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
